Method of cleaning residual pesticide from an agricultural vessel

ABSTRACT

The present invention generally relates to methods of cleaning residual pesticide from an agricultural vessel, and to kits and compositions useful for the practice of such methods.

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/442,710 filed Jun. 17, 2019, which is continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/486,770, filed Apr. 13, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/398,305, filed Oct. 31, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,657,258, issued May 23, 2017, which is the United States National Stage Application of International PCT Application No. PCT/US2013/38660, filed Apr. 29, 2013, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/640,999, filed May 1, 2012, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/724,054, filed Nov. 8, 2012, the entire disclosures of which are herein incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to methods of cleaning residual pesticide from an agricultural vessel, and to kits and compositions useful for the practice of such methods.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Auxin herbicides, such as 2,4-D and dicamba, are highly effective for the control of broadleaf weeds, particularly weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate. Dicamba, for example, causes significant damage to plants even at extremely low application levels.

When a pesticidal composition is sprayed, a residual amount of the active pesticidal agent typically remains in the tank. This pesticidal residue, if left untreated, can pose a significant problem for farmers by unintentionally damaging crops and desirable plants. As a result, special precautions must be taken to prepare spray tanks for subsequent use following the application of pesticides. This problem is particularly acute for auxin herbicides, such as dicamba, where even small amounts of herbicidal residue could result in significant damage to sensitive crop plants.

Due to the high potency of dicamba, three full rinses of the spray tank are traditionally required to ensure zero crop damage from the residue. Typical cleaning methods require the cleaning rinse to stand in the spray tank for at least four hours, and preferably should be allowed to soak overnight. This process, although effective, is both expensive and cumbersome. The rinses require additional water in the field, and the long soaking period reduces the time that the equipment is available for spraying crops.

An alternative method of degrading pesticidal residue in the field, which reduces the water use and time required for the farmer to switch to another pesticide, is therefore highly desirable.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Briefly, therefore, the present invention is directed to methods of preparing a tank for use in connection with a second pesticide following use of the tank in connection with a first pesticide. In various embodiments, the first pesticide is an herbicide. The first and second pesticides may be the same pesticide (e.g., dicamba). In various embodiments, the method comprises introducing a cleaning mixture into a tank containing a residual amount of a first pesticide; the cleaning mixture comprises (a) a source of transition metal ions, and (b) a source of hydrogen peroxide. Optionally, the cleaning solution may further comprise water. The method further comprises allowing the cleaning mixture to remain in the tank for a time sufficient to degrade at least a portion of the residual amount of the first pesticide, thereby forming a waste mixture comprising degradation products of the first pesticide; and removing the waste mixture from the tank.

The present invention is further directed to kits for use in cleaning a tank following the use of the tank in connection with a pesticide. Generally, the kits comprise a source of hydrogen peroxide and a source of transition metal ions.

In preferred embodiments of the present invention, the transition metal ions are polyvalent iron ions.

Other objects and features will be in part apparent and in part pointed out hereinafter.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is directed to the expected concentration of dicamba with respect to time on a logarithmic scale as described in Example 5.

FIG. 2 is directed to the reaction rate constant as a function of initial hydrogen peroxide concentration as described in Example 5.

FIG. 3 is directed to the reaction rate constant as a function of the molar ratio of iron ions to glyphosate in the reaction mixture as described in Example 5.

Corresponding reference characters indicate corresponding parts throughout the drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

In accordance with the present invention, it has been discovered that the Fenton reaction may be utilized to provide an economical and effective means of degrading residual pesticides (e.g., herbicides) in agricultural vessels (e.g., spray tanks).

In the Fenton reaction, in which a source of iron ions is utilized, ferrous iron ions are oxidized by hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxyl radicals:

Fe²⁺+H₂O₂→Fe³⁺+OH⁻+OH.  (1)

A second reaction, in which the iron (III) product compound is reduced in the presence of hydrogen peroxide, makes the Fenton reaction catalytic with respect to iron:

Fe³⁺+H₂O₂→Fe³⁺+H⁺+HOO.  (2)

In most environments, reaction (2) is several orders of magnitude slower than reaction (1), and thus becomes the rate-limiting step where an excess of H₂O₂ is present.

More generally, other transition metals have also been observed to catalyze reactions similar to the Fenton reaction, wherein transition metal ions react with hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxyl radicals. For example, the transition metal may be selected from the group consisting of copper, vanadium, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, cobalt, nickel, cerium, ruthenium, aluminum, antimony, zinc, titanium, tin, barium, and combinations thereof. Preferably, the transition metal ions are polyvalent. Cobalt is an example of a transition metal known to engage in a Fenton-like reaction with hydrogen peroxide. Accordingly, although the methods, compositions, and kits described herein are described primarily with respect to the traditional Fenton reaction, which involves polyvalent iron ions as the metal catalyst, one skilled in the art would understand that the present invention encompasses the use of other transition metals as described above.

When hydroxyl radicals are produced in the presence of a pesticide, the pesticide is degraded into reaction products that do not retain pesticidal activity. Surprisingly, it has been discovered that this reaction may be incorporated into an improved process for cleaning pesticidal residue from spray tanks that provides a high level of effectiveness and requires significantly less cleaning time than traditional rinses. The result is a convenient and inexpensive solution that is beneficial for both farmers and custom applicators. In particular, the methods of the present invention are suitable for in-field applications and also are more rapid than conventional tank cleaning methods. For example, as detailed elsewhere herein, the methods of the present invention are suitable for tank cleaning that occurs over a period of no more than 30 minutes and, in various preferred embodiments, methods that occur over a shorter period of time (e.g., less than about 10 minutes, or even less than about 5 minutes).

Generally, the method involves the preparation of an aqueous cleaning mixture comprising a source of transition metal ions (e.g., polyvalent iron ions) and a source of hydrogen peroxide. The cleaning mixture is introduced into a tank containing a residual amount of the pesticide, and is allowed to remain in the tank for a time sufficient to substantially degrade the pesticidal residue. As used herein, “degradation” refers to the process whereby the pesticide decomposes into reaction products that do not retain pesticidal activity.

Optionally, the present method may incorporate a pre-rinse step, wherein an amount of an aqueous medium (e.g., water) is introduced into the tank prior to the cleaning step. The pre-rinse step is useful to reduce any excessive pesticidal residue that may be present in the tank, thereby decreasing the total amount of pesticide that remains to be degraded by the cleaning solution. The waste product formed by the pre-rinse step, referred to herein as a diluted pesticidal residue mixture, comprises a portion of the residual first pesticide. Typically, at least a portion of the diluted pesticidal residue mixture is removed from the tank (e.g., by spraying) prior to introduction of the cleaning mixture into the tank.

Typically, the aqueous medium (e.g., rinse water) is introduced into the tank in a volumetric ratio, with respect to the pesticidal residue at a typical pesticidal concentration, of at least about 1:1, at least about 2:1, at least about 5:1, at least about 10:1, at least about 20:1, or at least about 50:1.

Generally, the amount of pesticide remaining in the tank and any appurtenant apparatus (e.g., spray lines, pumps, etc.) can be reliably estimated by one skilled in the art based on the size and shape of the tank, the spray apparatus, and the concentration of the first pesticide mixture. In most cases, the amount of dead volume present in a spray tank, and in any equipment connected thereto (e.g., a boom spray apparatus), will be known to the skilled worker and/or the equipment manufacturer, and may be used to obtain a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of pesticidal residue remaining therein. Once the amount of pesticidal residue remaining in the tank is estimated, appropriate amounts of the sources of transition metal ions and hydrogen peroxide forming the cleaning mixture can be selected for introduction into the tank. More particularly, appropriate molar ratios of hydrogen peroxide to pesticidal residue and to the transition metal ions are disclosed below and can be used to determine appropriate quantities of the sources of hydrogen peroxide and transition metal ions to form the cleaning mixture.

Where the spray tank is a component of a larger system, for example a boom spray system, the cleaning mixture can also be used to clean the hoses, pumps, and spray nozzles incorporated therein. Typically, water may be added to the cleaning mixture in an amount sufficient to allow the cleaning mixture to recirculate through the system (e.g., the boom spray system). The volume of liquid necessary for effective recirculation is dependent on the particular equipment to be cleaned, and can be reliably determined by one skilled in the art.

Generally, the amount of water incorporated into the cleaning mixture will correspond to the amount necessary to effectively recirculate the mixture through the system, as described above. This water may be provided by the source of transition metal ions, source of hydrogen peroxide, and/or as additional water added along with the source of transition metal ions and source of hydrogen peroxide. Typically, water constitutes at least about 50%, at least about 60%, at least about 70%, at least about 80%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%, at least about 98%, or at least about 99% by mass of the cleaning mixture.

After the pesticidal residue has been degraded, a waste mixture comprising degradation products of the first pesticide is formed, which should be removed from the tank. Typically, the waste mixture is removed from the tank by spraying. Generally, a final water rinse following the addition of the cleaning mixture is not required.

A significant advantage of the present invention, as compared to the prior art, is that the present methods may be performed in a relatively brief amount of time. More particularly, it has been surprisingly discovered that Fenton-type chemistry is effective for degradation of pesticidal residues over time scales such that tank cleaning methods incorporating Fenton chemistry are dramatically shorter than the tank cleaning methods typically employed in the prior art. For example, the duration between introduction of the cleaning mixture into the tank and removal of the waste mixture from the tank is typically less than about 2 hours. Depending on the concentration of iron ions and hydrogen peroxide in the cleaning mixture, and the amount of pesticidal residue in the tank, the duration may be less than about 1 hour, less than about 1 hour, less than about 30 minutes, less than about 25 minutes, less than about 20 minutes, less than about 15 minutes, less than about 10 minutes, or even less than about 5 minutes.

In most cases, at least about 50% by weight, at least about 60% by weight, at least about 70% by weight, at least about 80% by weight, at least about 90% by weight, at least about 95%, or at least about 99% by weight of the pesticidal residue is degraded prior to removal of the waste mixture from the tank.

In various embodiments, a pre-rinse step is not incorporated and the method proceeds over a duration of no more than about 30 minutes. That is, the waste mixture is removed from the tank (e.g., by spraying) within no more than about 30 minutes of introduction of the cleaning mixture into the tank (e.g., within no more than about 15 minutes or no more than about 5 minutes). Further in accordance with such embodiments, suitable degradation of the pesticidal residue (e.g., at least about 70% or at least about 80% by weight) is achieved during such methods.

The method may generally be used to degrade various pesticides known in the art. Typically, the first pesticide comprises one or more first herbicides. Non-limiting examples of water-soluble herbicides that may be degraded using the present methods include acifluorfen, acrolein, amitrole, asulam, benazolin, bentazon, bialaphos, bromacil, bromoxynil, chlorambenc, chloroacetic acid, clopyralid, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, dalapon, dicamba, dichlorprop, difenzoquat, endothall, fenac, fenoxaprop, flamprop, flumiclorac, flumioxazin, fluoroglycofen, flupropanate, fomesafen, fosamine, fluroxypyr, glufosinate, glyphosate, imazameth, imazamethabenz, imazamox, imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, ioxynil, MCPA, MCPB, mecoprop, methylarsonic acid, naptalam, nonanoic acid, picloram, quinclorac, sulfamic acid, 2,3,6-TBA, TCA, triclopyr and water-soluble salts or esters thereof.

Non-limiting examples of water-insoluble herbicides that may be degraded using the present methods include acetochlor, aclonifen, alachlor, ametryn, amidosulfuron, anilofos, atrazine, azafenidin, azimsulfuron, benfluralin, benfuresate, bensulfuron-methyl, bensulide, benzfendizone, benzofenap, bromobutide, bromofenoxim, butachlor, butafenacil, butamifos, butralin, butroxydim, butylate, cafenstrole, carfentrazone-ethyl, carbetamide, chlorbromuron, chloridazon, chlorimuron-ethyl, chlorotoluron, chlornitrofen, chlorotoluron, chlorpropham, chlorsulfuron, chlorthal-dimethyl, chlorthiamid, cinidon-ethyl, cinmethylin, cinosulfuron, clethodim, clodinafop-propargyl, clomazone, clomeprop, cloransulam-methyl, cyanazine, cycloate, cyclosulfamuron, cycloxydim, cyhalofop-butyl, daimuron, desmedipham, desmetryn, dichlobenil, diclofop-methyl, diflufenican, dimefuron, dimepiperate, dimethachlor, dimethametryn, dimethenamid, dinitramine, dinoterb, diphenamid, dithiopyr, diuron, EPTC, esprocarb, ethalfluralin, ethametsulfuron-methyl, ethofumesate, ethoxysulfuron, etobenzanid, fenoxaprop-ethyl, fenuron, flamprop-methyl, flazasulfuron, fluazifop-butyl, fluazifop-P-butyl, fluazoate, fluchloralin, flumetsulam, flumiclorac-pentyl, flumioxazin, fluometuron, fluorochloridone, flupoxam, flurenol, fluridone, fluroxypyr-I-methylheptyl, flurtamone, fluthiacet-methyl, graminicides, halosulfuron, haloxyfop, hexazinone, imazosulfuron, indanofan, isoproturon, isouron, isoxaben, isoxaflutole, isoxapyrifop, lenacil, linuron, mefenacet, metamitron, metazachlor, methabenzthiazuron, methyldymron, metobenzuron, metobromuron, metolachlor, S-metolachlor, metosulam, metoxuron, metribuzin, metsulfuron, molinate, monolinuron, naproanilide, napropamide, neburon, nicosulfuron, norflurazon, orbencarb, oryzalin, oxadiargyl, oxadiazon, oxasulfuron, pebulate, pendimethalin, pentanochlor, pentoxazone, phenmedipham, piperophos, pretilachlor, primisulfuron, prodiamine, profluazol, prometon, prometryn, propachlor, propanil, propaquizafop, propazine, propham, propisochlor, propyzamide, prosulfocarb, prosulfuron, pyraflufen-ethyl, pyrazogyl, pyrazolynate, pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, pyrazoxyfen, pyri buticarb, pyridate, pyriminobac-methyl, quinclorac, quinmerac, quizalofop, quizalofop-P, rimsulfuron, sethoxydim, siduron, simazine, simetryn, sulcotrione, sulfentrazone, sulfometuron, sulfosulfuron, tebutam, tebuthiuron, tepraloxydim, terbacil, terbumeton, terbuthylazine, terbutryn, thenylchlor, thiazopyr, thidiazimin, thifensulfuron, thiobencarb, tiocarbazil, tralkoxydim, triallate, triasulfuron, tribenuron, trietazine, trifluralin, triflusulfuron and vernolate.

Preferably, the present method is effective to degrade the residue of auxin herbicides. Exemplary auxin herbicides include 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acid (2,4-DB), dichloroprop, (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid (MCPA), 4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid (MCPB), mecoprop, dicamba, picloram, quinclorac, agriculturally acceptable salts or esters of any of these herbicides, and mixtures thereof.

The present method is particularly effective for the degradation of dicamba and 2,4-D. Without being bound to any particular theory, it is believed that the dominant degradation pathway utilized by the present method involves an attack on the ether linkages present in the dicamba and 2,4-D molecules. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis involving dicamba as described in the working examples herein shows a decrease in the dicamba molecule concentration followed by a corresponding increase in the concentration of 2,4-dichlorosalicylate as a degradation product. In certain embodiments, in addition to dicamba or 2,4-D, the present method is also effective for the degradation of flumioxazin.

The polyvalent iron ions may be derived from any water-soluble compound comprising iron in a +2 or +3 oxidation state. Suitable compounds include ferric ammonium sulfate, ferric chloride, ferric oxide, ferric oxide hydrate, ferric sulfate, ferrous ammonium sulfate, ferrous oxide, ferrous chloride, ferrous sulfate and/or iron salts of di-, tri- or other polycarboxylic acids such as iron citrate. Ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride and iron citrate are preferred sources of iron ions for use with the present method.

Ferrous sulfate is a particularly preferred source of iron ions. Ferrous sulfate dissolves readily in water, and has been found to exhibit favorable reaction kinetics as compared to other sources of polyvalent iron. Additionally, ferrous sulfate does not cause damage to most plastics or stainless steel, materials which are commonly used in pesticidal tanks.

The concentration of transition metal ions in the source of transition metal ions is typically at least about 5 grams per liter (g/L), at least about 7.5 g/L, at least about 10 g/L, at least about 12.5 g/L, at least about 15 g/L, at least about 17.5 g/L, at least about 20 g/L, or at least about 25 g/L.

Aqueous hydrogen peroxide is readily available from commercial suppliers, and is a preferred reagent for use with the present method. Alternatively, the method may utilize one or more compounds that react or dissociate to produce hydrogen peroxide in an aqueous environment. Exemplary reagents of this type include sodium perborate, sodium percarbonate, and other sources of peroxides, such as adducts of urea and peroxide.

Typically, hydrogen peroxide is incorporated into the cleaning mixture in a concentration of at least about 100 grams per liter of cleaning mixture. To reduce cleaning time and increase the rate of pesticidal degradation, a higher concentration of hydrogen peroxide may be incorporated into the cleaning mixture. Typically, the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the source of hydrogen peroxide is at least about 125 g/L, at least about 150 g/L, at least about 175 g/L, at least about 200 g/L, at least about 225 g/L, or at least about 250 g/L.

In cases where it is possible to accurately estimate the amount of pesticidal residue remaining in the tank, the amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the cleaning mixture may be adjusted accordingly. Typically, the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to residual pesticide is at least about 10:1, at least about 25:1, at least about 50:1, at least about 75:1, at least about 100:1, at least about 125:1, or at least about 150:1. Generally, higher hydrogen peroxide to pesticide ratios provide for faster degradation of the pesticidal residue.

In certain embodiments, the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to residual pesticide (e.g., first pesticide) is from about 10:1 to about 60:1, from about 10:1 to about 50:1, or from about 10:1 to about 40:1. In other embodiments, the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to residual pesticide (e.g., first pesticide) is from about 15:1 to about 35:1, from about 20:1 to about 35:1, or from about 25:1 to about 35:1. In still other embodiments, the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to residual pesticide (e.g., first pesticide) is from about 10:1 to about 30:1, or from about 10:1 to about 20:1.

Generally, the relative amounts of the hydrogen peroxide source and the transition metal source are incorporated into the cleaning mixture such that the initial molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to transition metal ions is from about 500:1 to about 1:1. More typically, the initial molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to transition metal ions is at least about 5:1, at least about 8:1, at least about 10:1, at least about 12:1, at least about 15:1, at least about 20:1, at least about 25:1, or at least about 50:1 with hydrogen peroxide being in molar excess. As used herein, the term “initial molar ratio” at least refers to the molar ratio of the hydrogen peroxide to transition metal ions at the outset of the cleaning operation (e.g., when the sources of hydrogen peroxide and transition metal ions are combined prior to initiation of the Fenton reaction). This does not, however, exclude the possibility that such molar ratios may persist during the cleaning operation. Typically, the source of hydrogen peroxide will be added to the cleaning mixture in a mass ratio of at least about 0.5:1, at least about 1:1, at least about 2:1, at least about 5:1, or at least about 10:1 as compared to the source of transition metal ions.

Additional considerations may apply when the pesticidal residue comprises a species that chelates or otherwise binds with free metal ions in solution. For example, many phosphate-containing herbicides (e.g., glufosinate) are known to be effective chelators. A particularly notable example of a species known to chelate free metal ions is N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, commonly referred to as glyphosate.

Glyphosate is a highly effective and commercially important broad spectrum herbicide useful in controlling the growth of germinating seeds, emerging seedlings, maturing and established woody and herbaceous vegetation, and aquatic plants. Glyphosate is used as a post-emergent herbicide to control the growth of a wide variety of annual and perennial grass and broadleaf weed species in cultivated crop lands, including cotton production, and is the active ingredient in the ROUNDUP family of herbicides available from Monsanto Company (Saint Louis, Mo.).

In addition to its herbicidal properties, glyphosate, by virtue of the presence of carboxyl and a phosphonomethyl groups or ligands, can function as a strong complexing agent and can chelate or otherwise bind with free metal ions in solution. In particular, glyphosate has been observed to chelate or bind with polyvalent iron ions, which are preferred for use with the methods described herein. As a consequence, the present methods require more metal ions to be added to the cleaning mixture when glyphosate is present in the herbicidal residue to compensate for this effect.

Frequently, herbicidal glyphosate formulations also contain relatively low concentrations of N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid (PMIDA) and/or salts thereof which are intermediate compounds produced during the glyphosate manufacturing process. Like glyphosate, PMIDA also chelates or binds with metal ions, and therefore also contributes to the requirement of additional transition metal ions added to the cleaning mixture.

For example, it has been observed that when no metal chelation is present (i.e., in the absence of glyphosate), suitable degradation of dicamba residue may occur with very low amounts of metal catalyst in the cleaning mixture (e.g., <1 mM). In the presence of glyphosate, however, herbicidal degradation was only observed with cleaning mixtures having transition metal ion concentrations that provided at least a 1:1 molar ratio of polyvalent iron ions to glyphosate, acid equivalent (a.e.).

Accordingly, when glyphosate is present, the molar ratio of transition metal ions to glyphosate is preferably greater than 1:1. Typically, the ratio is at least about 2:1, at least about 3:1, or at least about 4:1. In certain embodiments, the molar ratio of transition metal ions to glyphosate is from about 1:1 to about 8:1, from about 1:1 to about 6:1, or from about 2:1 to about 4:1.

Generally, the methods of the present invention do not require the use of a pH adjusting agent. Aqueous solutions of iron (II), typically derived from a source such as ferrous sulfate, have been found to be effective without adjustment of pH.

The use of a pH adjusting agent may be desirable, however, when aqueous solutions of iron (III) are employed. At a pH of up to about 2, ferric iron has a strong tendency to hydrolyze to form a binuclear species, [Fe(H₂O)₄(OH)₂Fe(H₂O)₄]⁴⁺ and at a pH above about 2 to 3 polynuclear Fe—OH species. The latter results in the precipitation of colloidal or hydrous ferric oxide.

The cleaning mixture preferably has a pH of from about 2 to about 4. Sodium hydroxide is typically used to raise the pH, if necessary, while a lower pH is typically achieved through addition of the acidic counterion corresponding to the iron source (e.g., H₂SO₄ when ferrous sulfate is used, or HCl when ferric chloride is used). Glyphosate salts, if present in the herbicidal residue, typically act to buffer the system to a pH of approximately 4.

As shown in Equation 1, reproduced below, the Fenton reaction involves the oxidation of ferrous iron ions by hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxyl radicals:

Fe²⁺+H₂O₂→Fe³⁺+OH⁻+OH.  (1)

This reaction requires stoichiometric amounts of Fe²⁺ and hydrogen peroxide to produce an equivalent molar quantity of hydroxyl radicals. The Fenton reaction is catalytic, however, to the extent that the iron (III) product compound is reduced in the presence of hydrogen peroxide:

Fe³⁺+H₂O₂→Fe³⁺+H⁺+HOO.  (2)

In the conventional Fenton process, reaction (2) is several orders of magnitude slower than reaction (1), and thus becomes the rate-limiting step in environments where an excess of H₂O₂ is present. Alternative pathways for reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II), however, are known in the art, and are predominantly used in many applications of Fenton chemistry for water or soil treatment.

For example, an alternative version of reaction (2) uses photochemical energy, rather than ambient thermal energy, to reduce the Fe(III) species to Fe(II):

Fe³⁺+H₂O₂→^(hv)Fe²⁺+H⁺+HOO.  (2B)

In this reaction, the Fe(OH)²⁺ ion absorbs light at wavelengths up to about 410 nm, which falls in the near-UV region of the spectrum. The photochemical reduction process including the combined process of reactions (1) and (2B) is generally known as the photo-assisted Fenton (or photo-Fenton) reaction.

Advantageously, the present method has been shown to work without the requirement of UV lighting or other photons to assist the reaction. This is beneficial, in part, because the UV lighting and other equipment required to carry out the photo-Fenton reaction can be fragile, unwieldy, and expensive, particularly when the reaction is scaled up to the level required for the agricultural uses described herein. Experiments were conducted using foil-wrapped containers, wherein the present method was used to degrade herbicidal residue in the absence of UV light. The foil-wrapped container results showed no significant differences in reaction kinetics as compared to equivalent experiments conducted in the presence of UV light. As a result, the present method does not require the cleaning mixture to be subjected to an artificial light source while in the tank. The tank material may be substantially opaque to ultraviolet light. In addition, the present method is suitable for use in large-scale agricultural operations.

As a further alternative to the UV-induced catalysis described above, an applied electric current may be used to reduce the iron (III) species, thereby regenerating the iron ions in solution. Advantageously, the present method does not require the use of electrochemistry, in that it does not require the cleaning mixture to be subjected to an applied electric current while in the tank.

Kits

The present invention is further directed to kits for use in connection with the methods described herein.

Generally, the kit comprises a source of polyvalent iron ions and a source of hydrogen peroxide. The sources of polyvalent iron ions and hydrogen peroxide, respectively, may be selected as described above. The kit may further comprise instructions for carrying out the methods described herein.

Typically, the source of hydrogen peroxide and the source of polyvalent iron ions should be packaged separately, such that they do not interact prior to the formation of the cleaning solution.

Following are Examples presented to illustrate the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of this invention. The examples will permit better understanding of the invention and perception of its advantages and certain variations of execution.

EXAMPLES Example 1

An experiment was conducted to measure the reaction kinetics of the present method with respect to dicamba. Ferric chloride (FeCl₃) was used as the source of iron. Aqueous hydrogen peroxide (30% w/w) was used as the peroxide source.

An additional sample was prepared with glyphosate to measure the effect of iron chelation on the dicamba degradation process.

Hydrogen peroxide was added to the reaction vessel in a molar ratio of 100:1 with respect to dicamba. In the absence of glyphosate, the results show that the dicamba concentration was degraded to below detectable limits in 24 hours. In the sample containing glyphosate, however, the reaction was effectively stopped due to chelation of the iron species. The results of these trials are summarized in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 100x Molar Ratio of Hydrogen Peroxide to Dicamba Over 24 Hours Dicamba Dicamba Dicamba Dicamba Sample % Change % Change % Change % Change No. Ingredients 0-2 Hr. 2-4 Hr. 4-6 Hr. 24 Hr. 723-10 glyphosate/  4%  4%  5%  6% dicamba/ H₂O₂/FeCl₃ 723-11 dicamba/ 35% 58% 70% 92% H₂O₂/FeCl₃

Additional trials were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of sodium percarbonate and OXICLEAN, respectively, as alternative sources of hydrogen peroxide. The results of these trials are summarized in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2 100x Molar Ratio of Hydrogen Peroxide to Dicamba Over 24 Hours Dicamba Dicamba Sample % wt. % Change No. Ingredients 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 723-16 glyphosate/dicamba/H₂O₂/FeCl₃ 0.116  7.9% 723-17 dicamba/H₂O₂/FeCl₃ 0.01  92% 723-18 glyphosate/dicamba/2(Na₂CO₃)• 0.103  18% 3(H₂O₂)/FeCl₃ 723-19 dicamba/2(Na₂CO₃)•3(H₂O₂)/ 0.122  7% FeCl₃ 723-20 glyphosate/dicamba/OXICLEAN/ ND 100% FeCl₃ 723-21 dicamba/OXICLEAN/FeCl₃ ND 100%

Example 2

Additional experiments were conducted to further investigate the effect of varying peroxide levels on the degradation reaction kinetics. Aqueous hydrogen peroxide, sodium percarbonate, and OXICLEAN were each used at 100:1 and 10:1 molar ratios with respect to dicamba, in samples both with and without the presence of glyphosate. Control samples were also prepared with one or more herbicides in the absence of a source of hydrogen peroxide, a source of iron, or both.

The samples were measured after 24 hours to determine the concentration of dicamba remaining in the reaction mixture. The pH of the reaction mixture was also recorded. The results of these trials are summarized in Table 3, below.

TABLE 3 Degradation of Dicamba after 24 Hours Sample Iron Hydrogen % Change No. Herbicide(s) Source Peroxide Source dicamba pH 1435-1 Dicamba None None 0% 6.36 1435-6 Dicamba FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (100x) 8% 3.97 1435-24 Dicamba FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (10x) 100% 1.84 1435-12 Dicamba FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (100x) 100% 1.91 1435-18 Dicamba FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (100x) 100% 1.86 1435-20 Dicamba FeCl₃ Sodium Percarb. 2% 10.78 (10x) 1435-14 Dicamba FeCl₃ Sodium Percarb. 9% 11.42 (100x) 1435-22 Dicamba FeCl₃ OXICLEAN (10x) 5% 10.93 1435-16 Dicamba FeCl₃ OXICLEAN (100x) 100% 10.82 1435-7 Dicamba None Sodium Percarb. 8% 11.54 (100x) 1435-8 Dicamba + None Sodium Percarb. 13% 10.51 Glyphosate (100x) 1435-23 Dicamba + FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (10x) 7% 3.38 Glyphosate 1435-11 Dicamba + FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (100x) 12% 3.3 Glyphosate 1435-17 Dicamba + FeCl₃ H₂O₂ (100x) 11% 3.28 Glyphosate 1435-19 Dicamba + FeCl₃ Sodium Percarb. 17% 9.43 Glyphosate (10x) 1435-13 Dicamba + FeCl₃ Sodium Percarb. 25% 10.63 Glyphosate (100x) 1435-21 Dicamba + FeCl₃ OXICLEAN 13% 10.32 Glyphosate (10x) 1435-15 Dicamba + FeCl₃ OXICLEAN 100% 10.84 Glyphosate (100x) 1435-2 Dicamba + None None 0% 4.29 Glyphosate 1435-10 Dicamba + FeCl₃ None 3% 3.51 Glyphosate 1435-3 Dicamba + None H₂O₂ (100x) 7% 4.14 Glyphosate 1435-9 Dicamba + None H₂O₂ + Sodium 17% 10.45 Glyphosate Percarb. (100x) 1435-5 Dicamba + None OXICLEAN 100% 10.73 Glyphosate (100x) 1435-4 Dicamba + None Sodium Percarb. 9% 10.52 Glyphosate (100x) 1435-25 Glyphosate FeCl₃ Sodium Percarb. 11.12 (100x)

Example 3

An experiment was conducted to investigate whether the chelation effect of glyphosate can be overwhelmed by including additional amounts of iron. Samples were prepared using ferric chloride (FeCl₃) and ferrous sulfate (FeSO₄), respectively, which were incorporated at molar ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 with respect to glyphosate.

Aqueous hydrogen peroxide (30% w/w) was used as the peroxide source, and was provided in a 100:1 molar ratio with respect to dicamba. A small number of control samples, as shown in the table below, were prepared in the absence of a peroxide source.

For samples comprising both glyphosate and dicamba, the herbicides were present in a molar ratio of 1.5:1, respectively.

The results showed that at both 1:1 and 2:1 molar ratios of iron salt to glyphosate, the dicamba was fully degraded after 24 hours, with the concentration being either not detectable (ND) or detectable but not quantifiable (<5 ppm) (DBNQ).

The results are summarized in Table 4, below. Iron concentration is provided in terms of the molar ratio with respect to glyphosate. Where no glyphosate is present, the concentrations used were either a 1.5:1 molar ratio to dicamba (1×) or a 3:1 molar ratio to dicamba (2×).

TABLE 4 Effect of Iron Concentration on Dicamba Degradation Rate in the Presence of Glyphosate Sample Peroxide No. Herbicide(s) Conc. Iron Source Iron Conc. Dicamba % 24 Hr. 08578911-1 Dicamba None None — 0.1021 08578911-2 Dicamba + Glyphosate None None — 0.1044 08578911-3 Dicamba 100x None — 0.0952 08578911-4 Dicamba + Glyphosate 100x None — 0.0981 08578911-5 Dicamba + Glyphosate None FeCl₃ 1X 0.0939 08578911-6 Dicamba 100x FeCl₃ 1X DBNQ 08578911-7 Dicamba 100x FeCl₃ 2X 0.0711 08578911-8 Dicamba + Glyphosate 100x FeCl₃ 1X DBNQ 08578911-9 Dicamba + Glyphosate 100x FeCl₃ 2X ND 08578911-10 Dicamba + Glyphosate None FeSO₄ 1X 0.0924 08578911-11 Dicamba 100x FeSO₄ 1X ND 08578911-12 Dicamba 100x FeSO₄ 2X 0.0972 08578911-13 Dicamba + Glyphosate 100x FeSO₄ 1X DBNQ 08578911-14 Dicamba + Glyphosate 100x FeSO₄ 2X ND

Example 4

Experiments were conducted using a dicamba/glyphosate tank mix formulation.

The herbicidal formulation was diluted to a concentration of 0.6% (g/g), which is appropriate for commercial spray applications. Further dilutions were made from this stock solution. Ferric chloride hexahydrate was provided by FISHER and diluted to a 10% (g/g) solution on an anhydrous basis with distilled water. Aqueous hydrogen peroxide (30%) was provided by SIGMA-ALDRICH and was used as received.

Experiments were performed in the hood using 8 drachm (˜30 ml) glass vials. Reagents were added to the vials in the following order: dicamba solution, ferric chloride solution, and aqueous hydrogen peroxide. One milliliter samples were taken from each vial at 5, 15, 30, 60, and 120 minute intervals and placed into HPLC vials containing a 10% solution of N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid (PMIDA). The PMIDA quenched the reaction by rapidly chelating iron and preventing it from degrading peroxide. The amount of PMIDA solution in each vial was calculated such that the sum of the moles of glyphosate and PMIDA were a 10% excess of the moles of iron present.

Samples were analyzed using ion chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy (IC/MS/MS) to determine the dicamba concentration with time. Results were reported on a mass basis in parts-per-million (ppm) of the sample.

Tables 5-7 summarize the experiments designed for analyzing the impact of initial iron, peroxide, and dicamba concentrations on dicamba degradation rates.

TABLE 5 Reagent amounts for experiments looking at the effect of initial iron concentration on dicamba degradation rate. Hydrogen 10% FeCl₃ PMIDA in Sample Dicamba, Peroxide, Solution, analytical ID mg/kg μL μL vial, uL 1.75XFe 1493.5 1725  960 125   2XFe 1493.5 1725 1097 125  2.5XFe 1493.5 1725 1371 125   3XFe 1493.5 1725 1645 125

TABLE 6 Reagent amounts for experiments looking at the effect of initial peroxide concentration on dicamba degradation rate. (NBP 08615439) Hydrogen PMIDA in Dicamba, Peroxide, Iron, analytical Sample ID mg/kg μL μL vial, uL  25XHOOH 1500  350 2200 160  50XHOOH 1500  700 2200 160  75XHOOH 1500 1050 2200 160 100XHOOH 1500 1400 2200 160 125XHOOH 1500 1750 2200 160

TABLE 7 Reagent amounts for experiments looking at the effect of initial dicamba concentration on dicamba degradation rate. Hydrogen PMIDA Sample Dicamba, Peroxide, Iron, in analytical ID mg/kg μL μL vial, uL D/1 6000 3466 4458 400 D/2 3000 1733 2229 400 D/4 1500  867 1115 400 D/8  750  433  557 400 D/16  375  217  279 400 D0   0  867 1115 400

Example 5

Using data generated in connection with the experiments described in Example 4, reaction kinetics were calculated for degradation of dicamba in the presence of glyphosate. The results are generally consistent with first order kinetics for all of the reagents.

For example, FIG. 1 shows the expected concentration of dicamba with respect to time on a logarithmic scale. The reaction rate constant (represented by the slope of the line) is not significantly impacted by the initial dicamba concentration, implying first-order behavior. FIG. 2 depicts the reaction rate constant as a function of initial hydrogen peroxide concentration. Generally, the data indicate that hydrogen peroxide has a first order effect on reaction rate. FIG. 3 depicts the reaction rate constant as a function of the iron to glyphosate molar ratio. Note that approximately 1.56 molar equivalents of iron are required to start the reaction in the presence of glyphosate. Also noteworthy is that the impact of increasing iron concentration is approximately 10 times greater than that achieved by increasing the concentration of hydrogen peroxide.

The reaction rate can reasonably be described by the equation below

$\begin{matrix} {r_{d} = {\frac{d\lbrack D\rbrack}{dt} = {{{k\left\lbrack {F - F_{0}} \right\rbrack}\lbrack F\rbrack}\lbrack D\rbrack}}} & (1) \end{matrix}$

Where D is the dicamba concentration in ppm, F is the molar ratio of total iron to glyphosate, and P is the peroxide concentration. From the kinetic data, k=7.2×10⁻⁷ min⁻¹ and F₀=1.56 mol iron/mol glyphosate. The rate equation is able to accurately fit the observations made in Examples 1-4 regarding changing peroxide and dicamba concentrations.

Example 6

The Fenton method, which was applied to degrade dicamba in Examples 1-4, was applied to 2,4-D to investigate whether this herbicide could also be degraded. The solutions set forth in Table 8, below, were prepared and placed in separate glass vials. The solutions were then analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography at 12 days following the first mixing. As shown in the table below, no dicamba or 2,4-D was detected in any of the samples comprising Fenton reagents.

TABLE 8 Analysis of dicamba and 2,4-D samples 0.1% wt Dicamba 2,4-D 10% w/w 30% w/w 0.1% wt 2,4-D acid (% wt/vol), (% wt/vol), Fe salt H₂O₂ Clarity amine remaining remaining Sample # (μL) (μL) (g) (g) after 12 days after 12 days 08488968-1 0 0 30 0 0.1058 ND (dicamba) 08488968-2 0 0 0 30 ND 0.1158 (2,4-D) 08488968-3 1050 1890 30 0 ND ND (dicamba/ peroxide/ FeCl₃) 08488968-4 1050 1890 30 0 ND ND (dicamba/ peroxide/ FeCl₃) 08488968-5 1050 1890 30 0 ND ND (dicamba/ peroxide/ FeCl₃) 08488968-6 1050 1890 0 30 ND ND (2,4-D/ peroxide/ FeCl₃) 08488968-7 1050 1890 0 30 ND ND (2,4-D/ peroxide/ FeCl₃) 08488968-8 1050 1890 0 30 ND ND (2,4-D/ peroxide/ FeCl₃)

Example 7

The following tables represent exemplary formulations, applications, and environmental conditions of the compositions and methods described herein. Unless otherwise noted, all values pertain to the cleaning of a full size spray tank with a capacity of 26 gallons (approximately equivalent to 100 kilograms).

TABLE 9 Dicamba Use Rate, lb/A  0.01  0.25  0.5 Glyphosate Use Rate, lb/A  0.03  0.75  1.5 FeCl₃, molar equivalent  1  1.25  1.5 to glyphosate Hydrogen Peroxide, 25 50 100 molar eq. to dicamba Temperature, C 15 25  35

TABLE 10 Dicamba Use 0.25 0.5 0.05 0.005 0.4518 2.56E−04 Rate, lb/acre Application Rate, 10 10 10 10 10 10 gallons/acre Dicamba 0.2998 0.5995 0.0600 0.0060 0.5417 3.069 × 10⁻⁶ Concentration, % (g/g) Holdup Volume, 6 6 6 6 6 6 gallons Rinse Volume, 20 20 20 20 20 20 gallons Rinse 1 Dicamba 691.75 1383.5 138.35 13.835 1250 0.70836 Concentration, mg/kg

TABLE 11 Glyphosate 0.75 1.5 0.15 0.015 1.355 1 Use Rate, lb/acre Application 10 10 10 10 10 10 Rate, gallons/acre Glyphosate 0.899 1.799 0.180 0.018 1.625 1.199 Concentration, % (g/g) Holdup Volume, 6 6 6 6 6 6 gallons Rinse Volume, 20 20 20 20 20 20 gallons Rinse 1 2075.3 4150.5 415.05 41.505 3750 2767.02 Dicamba Concentration, mg/kg

Tables 12A and 12B generally relate to an application of the present method to clean a full size spray tank, wherein the source of transition metal ions is ferric chloride, and the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide. In addition to glyphosate acid, a relatively small amount N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid, an intermediate produced during the production of glyphosate that is present in some glyphosate formulations, was also incorporated into the test herbicidal mixture. The test mixture was also pH adjusted to approximately 4.0 using sodium hydroxide, as necessary.

TABLE 12A Dicamba, mg/kg 1500 Glyphosate, mg/kg 3035.16 FeCl₃ Basis Amount,   1.3 mol/mol glyphosate H₂O₂ Basis Amount,  25 mol/mol dicamba

TABLE 12B Conc. Amount Density Mass Amount MW Amount Conc. (mg/ Component (uL) (mg/ul) Frac. (mg) (g/mol) (mmol) (mol/L) kg) Dicamba 30000 1 0.0015 45 221.04 0.20 0.01 1456 acid Glyphosate 30000 1 0.003 91.05 169.07 0.54 0.02 2946 acid FeCl₃ 392 2.898 0.1 113.56 162.2 0.70 0.02 3674 (10% soln) H₂O₂ 520 1.11 0.3 173.12 34.015 5.09 0.16 5600 (30% soln) Total 30912 422.73 PMIDA 429 1 0.094 40.36 227.11 0.18 5.67E−03 1288 10% (g/g) solution

Tables 13A and 13B generally relate to an application of the present method to clean a full size spray tank, wherein the source of transition metal ions is ferrous sulfate, and the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide.

TABLE 13A Dicamba Basis, mg/kg 1250 Glyphosate Basis, mg/kg 3750 FeCl₃ Basis Amount, uL  50 H₂O₂ Basis Amount, uL  567

TABLE 13B Conc. Amount Density Mass Amount MW Amount Conc. (mg/ Component (uL) (mg/ul) Frac. (mg) (g/mol) (mmol) (mol/L) kg) Dicamba acid 30000 1 0.0013 37.5 221.04 0.17 4.77 × 10⁻³ 1055 Glyphosate 30000 1 0.0038 112.5 169.07 0.67 0.02 3164 acid FeSO₄•7H₂O 3662 1.898 0.1 695.03 278.02 2.50 0.07 19550 (10% soln) Hydrogen 1890 1.11 0.3 629.37 34.015 18.50 0.52 17703 Peroxide (30% soln) Total 35552 1474.41

Tables 14A and 14B generally relate to an application of the present method to clean a full size spray tank, wherein the source of transition metal ions is ferric chloride, and the source of hydrogen peroxide is sodium perborate.

TABLE 14A Dicamba Basis, mg/kg 1250 Glyphosate Basis, mg/kg 3750 FeCl₃ Basis Amount, uL  50 H₂O₂ Basis Amount, uL  567

TABLE 14B Conc. Amount Density Mass Amount MW Amount Conc. (mg/ Component (uL) (mg/ul) Frac. (mg) (g/mol) (mmol) (mol/L) kg) Dicamba acid 30000 1 0.0013 37.5 221.04 0.17 0.01 1143 Glyphosate 30000 1 0.0038 112.5 169.07 0.67 0.02 3430 acid FeCl₃ 1400 2.898 0.1 405.72 162.2 2.50 0.08 12369 (10% soln) Sodium 1401 1.31 1 1835.57 100 18.36 0.56 55961 Perborate (μg) Total 32801 2391.29

Tables 15A and 15B generally relate to an application of the present method to clean a full size spray tank, wherein the source of transition metal ions is ferric chloride, and the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide. In addition to glyphosate acid, a relatively small amount N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid, an intermediate produced during the production of glyphosate that is present in some glyphosate formulations, was also incorporated into the test herbicidal mixture. The test mixture was also pH adjusted to approximately 4.0 using sodium hydroxide.

TABLE 15A Dicamba, mg/kg 1500 Glyphosate, mg/kg 3035.15625 FeCl₃ Basis Amount, mol/mol glyphosate   4 H₂O₂ Basis Amount, mol/mol dicamba  125

TABLE 15B Conc. Amount Density Mass Amount MW Amount Conc. (mg/ Component (uL) (mg/ul) Frac. (mg) (g/mol) (mmol) (mol/L) kg) Dicamba acid 50000 1 0.0015 75 221.04 0.34 5.66 × 10⁻³ 1252 Glyphosate 50000 1 0.00303 151.757 169.07 0.90 1.50 × 10⁻² 2533 acid FeCl₃ (10% 5573 1.045 0.1 582.37 162.2 3.59 5.99 × 10⁻² 9721 soln.) Hydrogen 4332 1.11 0.3 1,442.67 34.015 42.41 0.708 24083 Peroxide (30% soln) Total 59905 2251.79 PMIDA 9542 1 0.094 896.96 227.11 3.95 5.69 × 10⁻² 12916 10% (g/g) soln.

Tables 16A and 16B generally relate to an application of the present method to clean a full size spray tank, wherein the source of transition metal ions is ferric chloride, and the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide. In addition to glyphosate acid, a relatively small amount N-(phosphonomethyl)iminodiacetic acid, an intermediate produced during the production of glyphosate that is present in some glyphosate formulations, was also incorporated into the test herbicidal mixture. The test mixture was also pH adjusted to approximately 4.0 using sodium hydroxide.

TABLE 16A Dicamba, mg/kg 1500 Glyphosate, mg/kg 3035.15625 FeCl₃ Basis Amount, mol/mol glyphosate   4 H₂O₂ Basis Amount, mol/mol dicamba  125

TABLE 16B Conc. Amount Density Mass Amount MW Amount Conc. (mg/ Component (uL) (mg/ul) Frac. (mg) (g/mol) (mmol) (mol/L) kg) Dicamba acid 50000 1 0.0015 75 221.04 0.34 5.66 × 10⁻³ 1252 Glyphosate 50000 1 3.03 × 10⁻³ 151.757 169.07 0.90 1.50 × 10⁻² 2533 acid FeCl₃ (10% 5573 1.045 0.1 582.37 162.2 3.59 5.99 × 10⁻² 9721 soln.) Hydrogen 4332 1.11 0.3 1442.67 34.015 42.41 0.708 24083 Peroxide (30% soln) Total 59905 2251.79 PMIDA 9542 1 0.094 896.96 227.11 3.95 5.69 × 10⁻² 12916 10% (g/g) soln.

Example 8

This example describes a small-scale demonstration of the efficacy of the present invention in largely eliminating injury to soy due to residual levels of three herbicides: dicamba, 2,4-D and flumioxazin, all in the presence of glyphosate. Four simulated spray solutions were prepared. All of the solutions were prepared assuming a 10 gallon/acre spray rate with a glyphosate rate of 1.0 lb acid equivalent (a.e.) per acre (1120 g/ha). The source of the glyphosate was Roundup Powermax® herbicide. In addition, the spray solutions contained dicamba diglycolamine salt (Clarity®) or 2,4-D amine sometimes in combination with flumioxazin derived from Valor® herbicide.

60 ml of the simulated spray solutions were transferred to 250 ml beakers. A ferrous sulfate solution (10% iron) was added to each solution in an amount that provided 3 moles of iron per mole of glyphosate. 30 moles of hydrogen peroxide per mole of dicamba or 15 or 30 moles of hydrogen peroxide per mole of 2,4-D was then added. The flask was swirled and allowed to stand for 20 minutes. Oxygen evolution occurred with mild foaming.

Immediately after 20 minutes had elapsed, the treated solutions were diluted 30× and sprayed over glyphosate-tolerant soybeans at a 10 gallon per acre rate. As a control, untreated solution, was diluted 30× and sprayed at the same rate. Soybean injury was rated 7 days after spraying. Injury to soy was dramatically reduced in all cases.

TABLE 17 Treatment protocols and soy injury ratings for simulated tank cleaning Treatment Glyphosate Other Rates H₂O₂ Injury Injury No. rate (g/ha) herbicides (g/ha) ratio^(†) untreated treated 1 1120 Dicamba 560 30 26% 4% 3 1120 Dicamba/ 560/107 30 28% 7% flumi* 4 1120 2,4-D 1120 30 38% 4% 5 1120 2,4-D 1120 15 38% 3% 6 1120 2,4-D/ 1120/107 30 24% 4% flumi* *flumi = flumioxazin. ^(†)Molar ratio of H₂O₂ to dicamba or 2,4-D.

When introducing elements of the present invention or the preferred embodiments(s) thereof, the articles “a”, “an”, “the” and “said” are intended to mean that there are one or more of the elements. The terms “comprising”, “including” and “having” are intended to be inclusive and mean that there may be additional elements other than the listed elements.

In view of the above, it will be seen that the several objects of the invention are achieved and other advantageous results attained.

As various changes could be made in the above products and methods without departing from the scope of the invention, it is intended that all matter contained in the above description shall be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. 

1-48. (canceled)
 49. A kit for use in cleaning a tank following the use of the tank in connection with a herbicidal composition comprising dicamba, wherein the kit comprises a source of hydrogen peroxide, packaging for the source of hydrogen peroxide, a source of iron ions, and packaging for the source of iron ions, wherein: the packaging for the source of hydrogen peroxide and the packaging for the source of iron ions are separate such that the source of hydrogen peroxide and the source of iron ions do not interact prior to forming a cleaning solution, the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the source of hydrogen peroxide is at least about 100 g/L, and the concentration of iron ions in the source of iron ions is at least about 5 g/L.
 50. (canceled)
 51. (canceled)
 52. (canceled)
 53. The kit of claim 49 wherein the source of iron ions is selected from the group consisting of ferric ammonium sulfate, ferric chloride, ferric oxide, ferric oxide hydrate, ferric sulfate, ferrous ammonium sulfate, ferrous oxide, ferrous sulfate, ferrous chloride, iron salts of di-, tri- and other polycarboxylic acids and mixtures thereof.
 54. The kit of claim 53 wherein the source of iron ions is selected from the group consisting of ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and mixtures thereof.
 55. The kit of claim 54 wherein the source of iron ions comprises ferrous sulfate.
 56. The kit of claim 49 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide is a solid particulate composition selected from the group consisting of sodium percarbonate, sodium perborate, and mixtures thereof.
 57. (canceled)
 58. The kit of claim 49 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide.
 59. The kit of claim 49 wherein the kit consists essentially of aqueous ferrous sulfate, packaging for the aqueous ferrous sulfate, aqueous hydrogen peroxide, packaging for the aqueous hydrogen peroxide, water, and packaging for the water, wherein each packaging is separate.
 60. The kit of claim 49 wherein the concentration of iron ions in the source of iron ions is at least about 7.5 g/L.
 61. The kit of claim 49 wherein the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the source of hydrogen peroxide is at least about 125 g/L.
 62. The kit of claim 49 wherein the kit comprises hydrogen peroxide and iron ions in a molar ratio of at least about 5:1.
 63. The kit of claim 49 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide and the source of iron ions are present in a mass ratio of at least about 0.5:1.
 64. The kit of claim 49 further comprising instructions for preparing a cleaning mixture and instructions for cleaning a tank following the use of the tank in connection with a herbicidal composition comprising dicamba.
 65. A cleaning mixture for cleaning residual pesticide from an agricultural tank, the mixture comprising: a source of hydrogen peroxide a source of iron ions; and water, wherein: the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the source of hydrogen peroxide is at least about 100 g/L, and the concentration of iron ions in the source of iron ions is at least about 5 g/L.
 66. The cleaning mixture of claim 65, wherein the cleaning mixture has a pH of from about 2 to about
 4. 67. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the source of iron ions is selected from the group consisting of ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and mixtures thereof.
 68. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide is a solid particulate composition selected from the group consisting of sodium percarbonate, sodium perborate, and mixtures thereof.
 69. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide is aqueous hydrogen peroxide.
 70. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the cleaning mixture consists essentially of aqueous ferrous sulfate, aqueous hydrogen peroxide, and water.
 71. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the kit comprises hydrogen peroxide and polyvalent iron ions in a molar ratio of at least about 5:1.
 72. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide and the source of polyvalent iron ions are present in a mass ratio of at least about 0.5:1.
 73. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the cleaning mixture constitutes at least about 99% by mass of the cleaning mixture.
 74. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the source of hydrogen peroxide is at least about 125 g/L.
 75. The cleaning mixture of claim 65 wherein the concentration of iron ions in the source of iron ions is at least about 7.5 g/L. 